Delhi High Court Raises Alarm Over DGCA's Suspension of Revised Pilot Duty Time Norms
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday voiced serious concerns regarding public safety, stating that worries stemming from the non-implementation of Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) regulations designed to prevent pilot fatigue cannot be simply "brushed aside." The court has directed the aviation regulator to clarify its position on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that challenges its decision to temporarily suspend the enforcement of revised Flight Duty Time Limitation (FDTL) norms.
Core Issue: Flight Duty Time Limitation (FDTL) Norms
FDTL regulations are critical aviation safety protocols that mandate minimum rest periods for pilots and flight crew members. Their primary objective is to enhance fatigue management systems, thereby ensuring the highest standards of passenger safety during air travel. The revised norms were intended to further strengthen these safeguards.
Court's Stance on Regulatory Enforcement
Hearing the PIL against the DGCA's move to pause the implementation of these revised FDTL norms until February 10, a bench comprising Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia made pointed oral observations. The bench underscored the direct connection between these regulations and passenger security.
"It has a direct link to the safety of passengers. Unless the regulations are challenged, or there is some flaw, they need to enforce it. The regulations were in force for a long time, but they were not being followed. We are not considering the rationale of the regulations. When regulations are in force, they are to be implemented until revised," the bench remarked.
The court has scheduled the matter for a hearing on Thursday and instructed the DGCA's counsel to seek appropriate instructions from the regulator.
Background: IndiGo Flight Cancellations and Regulatory Relaxation
The PIL highlighted that IndiGo airline cancelled hundreds of flights across India during the first week of December 2025. This mass cancellation occurred because the airline was reportedly not adequately prepared to implement the new flight-duty norms for its pilots. In response to this operational crisis, the DGCA on December 5 provided a relaxation in the regulations.
This relaxation allowed for the substitution of leave with a weekly rest period, a measure aimed at enabling IndiGo to deploy more pilots and normalize its flight operations. The petitioner alleged that this relaxation was granted "illegally" and in a "prima facie mala fide" manner, exclusively to benefit IndiGo.
Court's Clarification and Dismissal of Locus Challenge
The court, however, clarified that the regulatory relaxation was applicable to all airlines, not just IndiGo. When IndiGo's counsel questioned the legal standing (locus standi) of the petitioner, Sabari Roy, the High Court dismissed this challenge. The court noted that Roy is a former aircraft engineer, and the issue at hand profoundly impacts public safety.
"She worked as an aircraft engineer. Her functions are directly connected with passenger safety... The concern cannot be brushed aside," the court stated, reinforcing that once regulations are officially in force, they must be implemented unless authorities decide otherwise through due process.
Acknowledgment of Regulatory Pressure
In a nuanced observation, the bench acknowledged that petitions of this nature do create significant pressure on regulatory bodies like the DGCA, and sometimes these regulators "succumbed to it." This remark highlights the complex interplay between judicial oversight, public interest litigation, and regulatory decision-making in matters of critical public safety like aviation.
